Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax Ludhiana vs. Goyal Mg Gases
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
105 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****
CEA-5-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.09.2026 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX LUDHIANA ....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS GOYAL MG GASES PVT LTD ….RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:- HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Present: Mr. Sourabh Goel, Senior Standing Counsel, Ms. Geetika Sharma, Advocate, Ms. Himanshi Gautam, Advocate and Ms. Drishti Saraf, Advocate for the applicant-appellant. ***** ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, CJ (Oral) CM-13129-CII-2026 (delay)
This application under Section 151 of CPC read with Chapter-I Part A Clause 5 Volume V of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules and Orders has been filed on behalf of the applicant- appellant seeking condonation of delay of 114 days in re-filing the instant appeal.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 114 days in re-filing the present appeal stands condoned. Main Case (O&M)
This appeal arises out of an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short, ‘Tribunal’) in Appeal No. EA/60298/2023, whereby the appeal filed by RAHUL JOSHI 2026.09.21 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CEA-5-2026 (O&M)
2 the respondent had been allowed.
The Tribunal has relied upon an earlier judgment of the Tribunal itself rendered in Shivam Industries v. CCE, Allahabad, reported as 2012 (28) ELT 598, which has attained finality. Although the question of law was left open by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
At the outset, we have called upon the learned counsel for the appellant to clarify as to how the appeal is maintainable in view of the specific provisions contained in Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1994. 6. Learned counsel for the revenue does not dispute that the issue relating to maintainability stands answered against the revenue by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Alupro Building Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-II, (2026) 42 Centax 456 (S.C.), wherein the Court observed as under:- “97. A conspectus of the aforesaid detailed discussion on the position of law as regards Sections 35G and 35L, respectively, and the meaning and application of “manufacture”, is as follows:- i. An appeal from an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal relating to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of excise duty or to the value of goods for the purpose of assessment lies before this Court and not before the High Court. However, such exclusion is not attracted by every question touching the rate of duty or the value of goods. The question must have a direct and proximate relationship with assessment. ii. The question of excisability of goods is connected with the rate of duty for the purpose of assessment. A decision on RAHUL JOSHI 2026.09.21 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CEA-5-2026 (O&M)
3 excisability of goods would be a precursor to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty or to the value of goods. iii. Sub-section (2) of Section 35L of the Act, 1944, merely gives statutory expression to the collective reading of Sections 35G and 35L respectively. It clarified that excisability always fell within the expression “rate of duty”. Thus, when an amendment intends to clarify something which is implicit in the operation of a provision, such an amendment operates retrospectively. iv. The process of making superficial changes in order to facilitate the use of goods, which do not alter the fundamental properties of the goods, does not create a distinct product so as to pass the transformation test. To levy excise duty, marketability of the manufactured goods has to be proved. A manufactured goods are said to be marketable when they is capable of being bought or sold, or known as a commercial product in the market. v. The burden of establishing marketability of the manufactured goods lies on the Revenue, and it must be discharged by demonstrating “marketability” as defined in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment. In this regard, the standard of proof while discharging the burden must be met keeping in mind the goods in question.”
In such view of the matter, we find that the present appeal itself is not maintainable before this Court and the remedy of the appellant lies elsewhere.
Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. RAHUL JOSHI 2026.09.21 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CEA-5-2026 (O&M)
4
All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. [ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA] CHIEF JUSTICE [ROHIT KAPOOR]
JUDGE SEPTEMBER 16, 2026 Rahul Joshi
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No 2. Whether Reportable Yes/No RAHUL JOSHI 2026.09.21 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.